Arguing that there was no trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages because there are no written records of such trade is like arguing that the yeti, an apellke creature supposedly existing in the Himalayas does not exist because there have been no scientifically confirmed sightings. A verifiable sighting of the yeti would prove that the creature does exist but the absence of sightings cannot prove that it does not.
Which one best counters the argument?
Answer: any trade between Europe and East Asia in the early Middle Ages would necessarily have been of very low volume and would have involved high-priced items, such as precious metals and silk.
My answer: There have been no confirmed sightings of the yeti, but there is indirect evidence, such as footprints, which if it is accepted as authentic would establish the yeti’s existence.
In my opinion, why that the above-mentioned answer is the answer shows that we should always look for something to weaken an assumption, instead of something that raises another reason, which is not the best rebuttal.
There are many examples, which I have noticed in CR, the right answer is very often the one that addresses something in the original infor.
